POPULAR LINKS

Children & Vulnerable Adults

Our experts in Trusts, Court of Protection, Education as well as our specialist teams advising on medical negligence and personal injury are experienced across a wide range of claims affecting children and vulnerable adults.

Give us a call today on

Message our experts

We promise that someone will get back to you to talk through your situation and explain how we can help. You can expect to hear back from us within two working hours and certainly no later than 10 am on the next working day.

Sorry, there are a few problems with the information you have entered.
Please correct these before continuing.

Thank You

Epicondylitis/Tennis Elbow Case Study

by Access Legal

Share

Settlement for tennis elbow repetitive strain injury

Our client was employed as a line operative. Her job involved opening boxes of skillets, turning the open box upside down, emptying the skillets onto a conveyor then placing a weight against the upright skillets. After performing this task for 30 minutes she was then required to lift flat pack cases from a pallet and place them into a magazine on a case packer.

As a result of the repetitive nature of this work our client was diagnosed with tennis elbow. She instructed Access Legal to bring a claim against her employers and we obtained supporting statements from colleagues, a number of whom were experiencing similar problems and felt that the system of work needed to be changed.

Despite these statements and evidence, her employers disputed responsibility for our client's injuries. We instructed a leading expert in the field of Work Related Upper Limb Disorders (WRULD) who confirmed the diagnosis made by our client’s treating consultants. Following the commencement of court proceedings, the parties both instructed their own ergonomic experts.

Our expert concluded it was our client’s work that either caused or contributed to her upper limb problems. The defendant's expert was of the opinion the work our client was required to undertake exposed her to no foreseeable risk of sustaining any work related upper limb disorder.

Since it was apparent that ours would be the more compelling argument, the case settled less than two weeks prior to the final court hearing.